What you need to know
- Public bodies reported a record number of FOI requests in 2025 – 46,277.
- Despite the increase in requests, the number of applications to the OIC fell by 10%.
- The OIC affirmed 33% of FOI decisions, a 5% increase on 2024.
- The number of FOI requests dealt with outside the statutory framework increased dramatically from 9% in 2024 to 21% in 2025.
- An increasing number of public bodies are seeking to rely on danger to a person’s life or safety as justification for the refusal of FOI requests.
Introduction
The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) published its annual report for 2025 in June 2026. The report highlights some interesting trends in Freedom of Information (FOI) law and practice over the last year. We examine those trends as well as notable decisions on the grounds for refusal relied upon by public bodies in 2025.
FOI trends
Public bodies are receiving an ever-increasing number of FOI requests. According to the OIC’s report, 46,277 FOI requests were made to public bodies in 2025. Not only does this represent an 11% increase on the number of requests made in 2024, but it is also the highest number of requests made in a single year since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (FOI Act). This is the second year in a row in which public bodies reported receiving a record number of requests.
The HSE continued to receive far more FOI requests than any other public body, accounting for 31.9% of all requests. Other bodies also saw marked increases in the number of FOI requests received, namely:
- The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration – +25%
- An Garda Síochána – +48%
- The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage - +37%
The rate at which FOI requests were refused or granted remained largely stable.
- 35% of requests were granted in full, a slight decrease on 2024
- 25% of requests were partially granted, a slight decrease on 2024
- 18% of requests were refused entirely, no change relative to 2024
More interestingly, 2025 saw a significant shift towards the informal handling of FOI requests. Between 2024 and 2025 the number of requests handled outside of the FOI Act jumped from 9% to 21%. This shift was welcomed by the OIC, having long been a proponent of the benefits available to FOI bodies and requesters who choose to handle requests outside of the statutory framework.
Clients of FOI bodies continue to account for the majority (56.4%) of requests. Journalists accounted for 16.3% of all requests, up from 14% in 2024.
Notable decisions
In addition to discussing trends in the FOI space, the report sheds further light on the OIC’s approach to the grounds for refusal under the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act – Frivolous, vexatious or manifestly unreasonable requests
In assessing the applicability of an exemption provided for under the FOI Act, the OIC will presume that the records are releasable, subject to FOI bodies’ ability to demonstrate that this is not the case. Section 15(1)(g) is no different. Decision-makers should operate based on a presumption that the request is reasonable and should be very slow to label a request frivolous or vexatious.
OIC-155530 - Mr X and Health Service Executive (HSE)
- The applicant requested records relating to an alleged data breach by a HSE clinician.
- The HSE sought to rely on section 15(1)(g), noting that the requester had made 33 FOI requests. All 33 requests stemmed from the requester’s interactions with the HSE’s mental health services. The requests formed a pattern whereby interactions between the requester and HSE tended to result in complaints, for example to the DPC or to professional bodies. Some of the requests targeted specific staff members, which the HSE contended disrupted the provision of health services and caused staff to feel harassed.
- The OIC upheld the HSE’s refusal, holding that making 33 connected FOI requests was excessive by reasonable standards. In addition, the requester was using the FOI Act as a means to pursue individual grievances rather than to obtain access to records that might be important to the requester’s care or treatment.
- Notably, the OIC held that where a complaint has been made to and is being investigated by a regulator, the reasonable course of action would be to let the matter remain with the regulator for investigation.
Section 15(1)(a) – Information that does not exist
Under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, FOI bodies may refuse a request if the record does not exist or cannot be found. However, regard must be had to the purpose of the FOI Act, which is to enable public access “to the greatest extent possible” to records held by public bodies. This case demonstrates that an FOI body may be required to create an as yet non-existent record to fulfil this purpose.
OIC-146030 Ms X v HSE
- The HSE rejected a request for records on terminations in Ireland (2019–2022), as no aggregate record existed and compiling one would require creating an entirely new record.
- The OIC accepted that an FOI body could not be required to create an entirely new record. However, the HSE did hold records containing the totals for each healthcare provider. The release of those totals would effectively amount to the granting of access to the aggregated figures.
- To allow the HSE to refuse a request on the basis that it held no single record containing the requested information would run contrary to the purpose of the FOI Act.
- Therefore, the HSE was required to provide the individual, unaggregated figures for each year. The OIC noted that the FOI Act did not prohibit the creation of a new record to satisfy a request so that it was open to the HSE to provide the requester with the aggregate figures.
Section 32(1)(b) of the FOI Act – Reasonable expectation of danger to the life or safety of any person
The report notes a somewhat concerning increase in the number of public bodies refusing access to records based on a reasonable expectation of harm. Again, the default position under the FOI Act is that the records responsive to the request should be released. Despite the fact that FOI bodies need not establish a definite risk of harm, the OIC has stated that section 32(1)(b) should only be invoked in the most serious of circumstances.
OIC-156399 Ms X and Housing Agency
- The Housing Agency sought to rely on section 32(1)(b) to refuse FOI requests for records relating to the defective blocks scandal. It pointed to an “escalation of threatening and abusive behaviour” towards employees. An increase in what is considered to be inappropriate correspondence had previously been observed following the release of similar records under the FOI Act, resulting in the publication of the names of staff members in the press.
- This, the agency argued, gave rise to legitimate concerns for the well-being of its employees to whom it owed a duty of care under health and safety legislation.
- The OIC rejected many of the arguments surrounding the applicability of section 32(1)(b), emphasising the need to limit its application to the most serious of circumstances. However, it accepted that the Housing Agency was justified in withholding records identifying contractors and employees, given prior incidents where individuals attended an employee’s home, resulting in a report to the Gardaí.
Comment
One very clear trend identified in the OIC’s Annual Report for 2025 is that the year-on-year increase in the number of FOI requests is likely to continue.
Furthermore, in its discussion of “notable” decisions in 2025, the OIC repeatedly emphasised the exceptional nature of the grounds for refusal provided for under the FOI Act. FOI decision-makers should therefore always operate on the basis of a presumption that records relevant to a request should be released.
For more information on FOI requests, the grounds for refusal or how your organisation might handle a request outside of the statutory framework, contact a member of our Public, Regulatory & Investigations team.
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.